Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There is an inflammatory disease that has affected a very small number of children, which you can read about here:

https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/rounds/rare-covid-related-inflammatory-disease-affecting-children

“This condition is extremely rare,” says Elizabeth Lloyd, M.D., pediatric infectious diseases physician at Michigan Medicine C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital.

“COVID-19 is affecting a very small number of children to begin with, and even fewer are getting severely sick or experiencing this inflammatory syndrome. While we don’t want to cause alarm, we do want the community to be aware of signs to watch out for. Parents should take this seriously and seek care right away if their children show any of these symptoms.”

However, this is not "a generation of kids with lung problems", and honestly that kind of language frustrates me. There is a lot that is unknown here, but there is also a lot that is known and has data coming out to support it. This is why, for instance, we all are trying to wear masks now. Something that at first wasn't suspected to help, and it turns out makes a huge difference.

Every source I can find and read says that children are rarely affected by this disease, and even much more rarely in a serious way, and are also not nearly as likely to transmit. There are a lot of kids in bad home situations, and it's well worth considering all possibilities for a return to in-person education in areas where this is feasible, and can be done with appropriate social distancing. It should not be written off with fearmongering... that's just as bad as people who write off the disease as if it shouldn't be feared at all, imo. Science should be what's driving our decisions... and the experts in this case are asking to consider the possibility.

Just to make things confusing and difficult for parents, CoVid toes made the rounds as another inflammatory symptom of the virus but has been called in question as a correlation with CoVid, not caused by it, because of the change in children staying at home and wearing socks or staying barefoot more often. Or, heck, these symptoms could be from both -- it's not like a single symptom has only one cause. I should mention that dermatology problems are some of the hardest to diagnose the root cause. Just ask anyone with a skin allergy or eczema.

Inflamed brains, toe rashes, strokes: Why COVID-19's weirdest symptoms are only emerging now (May)

This article does a good job of summarizing the unusual symptoms associated with CoVid, as well as pointing out the need for additional studies. Bet you didn't see that coming.

"One of the most recently discovered—and most inexplicable—signs of COVID-19 is a broad range of inflammatory symptoms that it seems to be provoking in the skin, including rashes, the painful red lesions that have come to be known as COVID toe, and the collection of symptoms in children that’s been labeled a “Kawasaki-like” syndrome."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/kawasaki-stroke-why-coronavirus-weirdest-symptoms-are-only-emerging-now-cvd/


What Are 'COVID Toes'? Dermatologists Say Foot Lesions May or May Not Be New Coronavirus Symptom ; Could walking barefoot or being sedentary during lockdown periods account for this symptom?

A reminder that correlation is not causation. And, of course, the need for continued studies.

"A research team in Belgium, reporting in JAMA Dermatology, described 31 mostly teenage and young adult patients with purplish-red lesions on their toes and/or fingers. None tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes the illness, and all were negative for antibodies to the virus. Researchers suspect that these patients' skin symptoms may be due to community containment and lockdown measures imposed as a result of the pandemic. A majority (64%) reported decreased physical activity and more time spent in sedentary positions as they worked from home or were home schooled. Notably, most patients indicated that they remained barefoot or in socks most of the day. Similarly, researchers in Spain evaluated 20 children and teens who developed a purplish skin rash on their feet and/or hands. None had COVID-19 symptoms or evidence of infection based on nasal swab and blood testing. Writing in JAMA Dermatology, the authors say one possibility is that the kids' symptoms may have been related to the quarantine experience of going barefoot or only wearing socks and engaging in little physical activity. Of course, much remains unknown. Larger, well-designed studies involving control groups are needed to sort out any possible correlation between these toe lesions and coronavirus infections.

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/covid-toes

Is someone just spending extra points in Plaque Inc now?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Is someone just spending extra points in Plaque Inc now?

Once you reach critical mass you just spend those points like crazy!

 Overread wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Is someone just spending extra points in Plaque Inc now?

Once you reach critical mass you just spend those points like crazy!

first you hide, be asymptomatic, just spread, via zoonosis, the stupid humans will eat it anyways, then you strike, when you are on all continents!

https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/07/13/florida-counts-12624-coronavirus-infections-on-monday-35-deaths/

Speaking just for my little neck of the woods- right now, 20% of our cases are coming from people under 24. That's as close to school age children as I've been able to find on official data so far. Peak transmission seems to occur when a group of people are indoors, breathing the same air, for extended periods of time. Schools do a host of wonderful social things for children, there's no doubt about that. It also is going to immediately link at mine, the circles of 1400 families. There is no mandatory mask order for the state, although thankfully my district is requiring them to come to school. We will not check student temperatures at the door, instead we will rely on the parents to identify sick kids before dropping them off. We will not even give employees a temperature check before letting them in. Although we're attempting to limit the surfaces in the classroom, I haven't heard any plans for us to reduce class sizes or enforce social distancing. In an average classroom, I don't think you could fit 10 students in with 6 feet between them, and we do not have the resources for that.

My county has 20,000 active cases, and are adding 500 a day.Reopening schools is going to dramatically increase the numbers.of infections. We don't have the resources to do this thing safely- and if we do, it's going to take out these kids grandparents and their teachers. If the circumstances warranted closing the schools back in April... they really shouldn't be reopened when the circumstances are worse.

People under 24 is not a good approximation for children, imo... the CDC has estimated that children under 18 make up only 2% of cases:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/covid-19-is-very-different-in-young-kids-versus-adults-67637/amp

That article also says this:

Understanding transmission better could help inform public health policy as schools and childcare centers decide how and whether to reopen or not, says Schuster. “Initially, there was a lot of thought that this virus could be spread by children in congregate settings, which is common for other respiratory viruses like influenza. What we’re seeing more and more from the data that comes out is that child-to-child or child-to-adult spread is actually not common,” she says.

Even among children hospitalized in a study it references (in this case 12 and under) it describes how their lungs are not affected in the same way as adults (it is much less severe for them).

I understand the fear of schools acting as transmission hubs, since they normally are for cold/flu... but the science and data is indicating this just isn't the same for covid, and we've got to weigh that and at least consider the possibilities.

I certainly hope you're right. I hate the thought of losing students. My initial article has 3.4% of positive cases in Florida coming from children 5-14, which is worrisome.

This article suggests that "Published last week in the journal the Lancet, the study found very little evidence of prior Covid-19 infection among children ages 5 to 9 years (the youngest included). But children ages 10 to 19 were as likely to have antibodies to the infection as adults ages 20 to 49 — and more likely than adults older than that."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31304-0/fulltext

If the 10-19 age bracket suffers infection and transmits as well as adults, middle schools and high schools are going to be major spreaders of the virus. Unfortunately, even your hopeful article says that
"Plus, the study’s age ranges “eliminated the sickest group that we’ve identified” in the US, Sills says. “The later teens, who fall within our pediatric population, have been some of our sickest patients,” she explains, adding that the authors may have missed sicker babies younger than one month as well. The authors did not respond to requests for an interview. ".

I'm certainly very open to the idea of treating children under 10 differently from middle and high school students. I think the data likely supports this in that the very youngest are the least susceptible, with a sliding scale as they get older and closer to adulthood.

That's a conversation worth having... but is very different from what people were posting last page, to be honest. I just want people to consider the facts... we know so much more than we did in March, and can hopefully make some informed public health (and schooling) decisions as a result.

Getting straight national data on Covid-19 in the USA might become a bit more difficult in a few days time...

Not good.

 RiTides wrote:
I'm certainly very open to the idea of treating children under 10 differently from middle and high school students. I think the data likely supports this in that the very youngest are the least susceptible, with a sliding scale as they get older and closer to adulthood.

fwiw, Teenagers engage in behavior that is more likely to expose them (eg. partying, jobs) than children. I would say that adults, as an aggregate, have a higher exposure to the virus through work and hospitals.

*****

1 in 3 young adults ‘vulnerable’ to severe COVID-19 cases, especially smokers
"32 percent of people aged between 18 and 25 who took part in the study were “medically vulnerable” to the deadly pandemic — but that the figure dropped to 16 percent when smokers of cigarettes and e-cigarettes were removed from the sample"
https://nypost.com/2020/07/14/1-in-3-young-adults-vulnerable-to-severe-covid-19-study-shows/

Children, teens may transmit Covid-19 despite high proportion of mild or asymptomatic infections, says study
Analysis shows viral load is comparable to that of adults and that symptomatic children of all ages shed infectious virus in early acute illness, a prerequisite for further transmission
https://meaww.com/children-teenagers-shed-coronavirus-spread-disease-study-asymptomatic

****

Louisiana : Teenagers and young adults highest in the state for COVID-19
https://www.klfy.com/health/coronavirus/teenagers-and-young-adults-highest-in-the-state-for-covid-19/

NYC : New York City sees uptick in coronavirus cases among young adults (20's)
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/07/13/new-york-city-sees-uptick-in-coronavirus-cases-among-young-adults-1300223

Hanlon's Razor (the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one) would say the relaxation of lockdowns, protests, and disregard for protection is a more likely explanation for rising number than, say, teenagers and "young and healthy" people recently becoming less resistant to the disease, or the virus mutating to affect these groups in particular. Unfortunately, while we have data breaking down infections and deaths by age (as well as data for frontline workers), we don't have, or at least it hasn't been reported, data differentiating, within an age group, social activity. So far, from what I've read, health (including pre-exsisting conditions) and exposure (which includes personal protection use and isolation) to the virus are the most important factors for the virus, and, the younger the person, the more important exposure becomes.

This....I'm too stunned to even say anything about it.

https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/rush-limbaugh-americans-should-adapt-coronavirus-famous-pioneers-who-had-turn

RaiTides, that article is from a month ago. Even Fox News is now admitting children get it and can be harmed by it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/health/over-31-percent-florida-children-tested-florida-positive-covid-19-report.amp

 Alpharius wrote:
Getting straight national data on Covid-19 in the USA might become a bit more difficult in a few days time...

Not good.

Everyone knows that if you just deny it exists then it isn't real.

 ced1106 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I'm certainly very open to the idea of treating children under 10 differently from middle and high school students. I think the data likely supports this in that the very youngest are the least susceptible, with a sliding scale as they get older and closer to adulthood.

fwiw, Teenagers engage in behavior that is more likely to expose them (eg. partying, jobs) than children. I would say that adults, as an aggregate, have a higher exposure to the virus through work and hospitals.

*****

1 in 3 young adults ‘vulnerable’ to severe COVID-19 cases, especially smokers
"32 percent of people aged between 18 and 25 who took part in the study were “medically vulnerable” to the deadly pandemic — but that the figure dropped to 16 percent when smokers of cigarettes and e-cigarettes were removed from the sample"
https://nypost.com/2020/07/14/1-in-3-young-adults-vulnerable-to-severe-covid-19-study-shows/

Children, teens may transmit Covid-19 despite high proportion of mild or asymptomatic infections, says study
Analysis shows viral load is comparable to that of adults and that symptomatic children of all ages shed infectious virus in early acute illness, a prerequisite for further transmission
https://meaww.com/children-teenagers-shed-coronavirus-spread-disease-study-asymptomatic

****

Louisiana : Teenagers and young adults highest in the state for COVID-19
https://www.klfy.com/health/coronavirus/teenagers-and-young-adults-highest-in-the-state-for-covid-19/

NYC : New York City sees uptick in coronavirus cases among young adults (20's)
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/07/13/new-york-city-sees-uptick-in-coronavirus-cases-among-young-adults-1300223

Hanlon's Razor (the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one) would say the relaxation of lockdowns, protests, and disregard for protection is a more likely explanation for rising number than, say, teenagers and "young and healthy" people recently becoming less resistant to the disease, or the virus mutating to affect these groups in particular. Unfortunately, while we have data breaking down infections and deaths by age (as well as data for frontline workers), we don't have, or at least it hasn't been reported, data differentiating, within an age group, social activity. So far, from what I've read, health (including pre-exsisting conditions) and exposure (which includes personal protection use and isolation) to the virus are the most important factors for the virus, and, the younger the person, the more important exposure becomes.

I guess these young people should wear more masks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
RaiTides, that article is from a month ago. Even Fox News is now admitting children get it and can be harmed by it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/health/over-31-percent-florida-children-tested-florida-positive-covid-19-report.amp

Has anyone ever said children cant be harmed by it? Statistically children rarely contract and are at even less risk from Covid than they are the flu. This is not disputed by anyone as far as I know.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

Notice. Close to 0 cases(deaths) in young children. This data is pretty convincing here.

It's not that children are immune its that early evidence and some later support arguments are basically trying to make children out as totally safe. It's a near repeat of the same "the under 60s are safe" news that we heard before. It took months to really show that those younger are at just as much risk and can still develop life long damage to the lungs and other organs.

The risk is we treat children as "safe" and suddenly we find out that several generations are suddenly blighted with small percentage,s but significant numbers of people with life long damage to lungs and other body organs. Those are the kinds of thing that can very much damage an economy and health system.

 Overread wrote:
It's not that children are immune its that early evidence and some later support arguments are basically trying to make children out as totally safe. It's a near repeat of the same "the under 60s are safe" news that we heard before. It took months to really show that those younger are at just as much risk and can still develop life long damage to the lungs and other organs.

The risk is we treat children as "safe" and suddenly we find out that several generations are suddenly blighted with small percentage,s but significant numbers of people with life long damage to lungs and other body organs. Those are the kinds of thing that can very much damage an economy and health system.

Do we have the data on people who suffer permanent damage from the disease but don't die from it? I'd like to see that compared to all respiratory illness that causes permanent damage so we can see what the actual overall increase in permanent lung damage is over the population. We need prospective.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
RaiTides, that article is from a month ago. Even Fox News is now admitting children get it and can be harmed by it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/health/over-31-percent-florida-children-tested-florida-positive-covid-19-report.amp

Has anyone ever said children cant be armed by it? Statistically children rare contract and are at even less risk from Covid than they are the flu. This is not disputed by anyone as far as I know.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

Notice. Close to 0 cases in young children. This data is pretty convincing here.

Exactly - this isn't an argument (at least, with anyone here). Thanks for referencing the CDC, as well. I understand the public health concern about unknowns, but that's why it's even more important to reference scientific sources when discussing this.

Policy makers should be looking at data and considering the risks of different options. But there are risks to children both ways, and that's what the pediatric society recommendation was getting at.

Mario wrote:


From what I have read a high degree of simple mask wearing did correlate well enough with better results and fewer infections in Japan (where they had a few blunders in other corona policies) and South Korea (who did really well from the start) despite both countries having areas with very high population density where distancing is not alway easy. When mask wearing is one of the smaller burdens (next to distancing) we can try in regard to corona then I'd rather we try wearing masks even if they are (much) less effective than hoped for. At worst they can lead to people touching their faces less in public if they follow a strict protocol or just use them as a "reminder" to not do that while outside.

It's a pandemic and we don't have a "control group" or 100% independent variables.

If it's an argument about awareness of the virus then that is a different issue. Becoming more aware also can help prevent a pandemic. South Korea and Japan had much more effective early tracing of contacts, how it could have spread and could get in touch with those contacts earlier. They had these measures in effectively from day 1. In the UK its still not working effectively, only about 25% of those infected are contacted Masks are also a common thing to wear in Asian countries because of pollution levels (which are also better at filtering out fine particles. Hence the argument that there was a large number of people wearing masks during the pandemic could simply be attributed to a large number of people already wearing masks before the pandemic and people just carried on as normal. However in these countries it was used as a package of measures to go into 'lock down' the country. In the UK face coverings (not proper masks) are being sold as the way get out of the lock down. That's despite that many people aren't used to wearing them, or handling them properly and that face coverings (not medical masks) have no real evidence in actual infection scenarios (other than the assumption that less mouth/nose spray means less infection which definitely hasn't been proven because no one knows the viral load you need to become infected). As such in a perverse manner they are not being sold as an awareness of the virus, they are being sold as awareness of its safe if you wear them. Unlike the former method which makes people more wary and careful, the UK approach will make people less wary more inclined to worry about the virus and that ultimately means other measures (like keeping your distance) will be ignored because you are safe. Ultimately that opens up a huge risk of reinfection of the populace and we can see that already happening in the UK, there are now numerous areas where there are spikes of infections (and these are just the ones detected, without large scale random sampling there will be others that are missed). Hence why I would recommend that for the the UK (especially England) you avoid going to shops as much as possible because I feat the consequences of a mass return to normal.

It's a pandemic and we don't have a "control group" or 100% independent variables.

This isn't quite true, there have been controlled studies of the impacts of water borne virus infections of masks vs non-masks (measured during flu seasons etc just not specifically on COVID19). It's why the scientific advice can be confusing. The population studies show at best weak benefits from using mask for the wider populace (and very strong benefit in medical centres). The absolute studies of water transmitted through masks (not the virus note) show strongly that it reduces water particles transmitted. The two issues can't yet be reconciled, but I'd tend to err on the side of population studies because it represents the greatest risk scenario and plan according to this, whereas the UK (particularly England) is working on the best case scenario of using masks...

I think the argument is functionally "How many avoidably dead children are we good with"?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory or hyperbolic, just getting down to the core of the argument. What percentage of children will get Coronavirus if schools reopen, and what percentage of those will die, and are we good with that? As long as most people assume it's someone else's kids dying, I'm pretty sure it's at least 2%.


I personally don't think schools should reopen until there is a vaccine, or unless we can determine the number of children who die from school reopening is less than will avoidably die from other factors (I know some percentage of children will die from not going to school due to various factors like domestic violence and malnutrition). And of course, kids don't live in a magic bubble - those schools have teachers and janitors and administrators who will catch it, and children come home to families, and so on. No - my vote is not until a vaccine.


Imagine what life in the US could have been like if our country's leadership had mandated masks and lockdowns in February - we could be returning to normal by now.

 Ouze wrote:
I think the argument is functionally "How many avoidably dead children are we good with"?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory or hyperbolic, just getting down to the core of the argument. What percentage of children will get Coronavirus if schools reopen, and what percentage of those will die, and are we good with that? As long as most people assume it's someone else's kids dying, I'm pretty sure it's at least 2%.


I personally don't think schools should reopen until there is a vaccine, or unless we can determine the number of children who die from school reopening is less than will avoidably die from other factors (I know some percentage of children will die from not going to school due to various factors like domestic violence and malnutrition). And of course, kids don't live in a magic bubble - those schools have teachers and janitors and administrators who will catch it, and children come home to families, and so on. No - my vote is not until a vaccine.


Imagine what life in the US could have been like if our country's leadership had mandated masks and lockdowns in February - we could be returning to normal by now.

Imagine if america didnt elect a loon who couldnt handle a lice outbreak in a school let alone a country.

 Ouze wrote:
I think the argument is functionally "How many avoidably dead children are we good with"?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory or hyperbolic, just getting down to the core of the argument. What percentage of children will get Coronavirus if schools reopen, and what percentage of those will die, and are we good with that? As long as most people assume it's someone else's kids dying, I'm pretty sure it's at least 2%.


I personally don't think schools should reopen until there is a vaccine, or unless we can determine the number of children who die from school reopening is less than will avoidably die from other factors (I know some percentage of children will die from not going to school due to various factors like domestic violence and malnutrition). And of course, kids don't live in a magic bubble - those schools have teachers and janitors and administrators who will catch it, and children come home to families, and so on. No - my vote is not until a vaccine.

IMO that is an unrealistic and unreasonable position.
A larger % of children would die of flu if we reopen schools from influenza if schools reopen but we never consider shutting down schools because influenza exists. When it comes to teachers...they also aren't at a very significant risk ether. The average age of teachers in this country is low 40's - not a particularly dangerous age to be. In any case - wouldn't it be a better idea to have kids go to school and have teachers teach from home?

 RiTides wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
RaiTides, that article is from a month ago. Even Fox News is now admitting children get it and can be harmed by it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/health/over-31-percent-florida-children-tested-florida-positive-covid-19-report.amp

Has anyone ever said children cant be armed by it? Statistically children rare contract and are at even less risk from Covid than they are the flu. This is not disputed by anyone as far as I know.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

Notice. Close to 0 cases in young children. This data is pretty convincing here.

Exactly - this isn't an argument (at least, with anyone here). Thanks for referencing the CDC, as well. I understand the public health concern about unknowns, but that's why it's even more important to reference scientific sources when discussing this.

Policy makers should be looking at data and considering the risks of different options. But there are risks to children both ways, and that's what the pediatric society recommendation was getting at.

The AAP has sided with teachers unions against that interpretation of their statement. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/07/10/pediatricians-trump-school-reopening-coronavirus-356229

The policy makers are cherry-picking data to justify their political decisions, not examining it.

It’s really easy to conflate a small number of deaths and likely much larger number of lifelong health issues with none at all when you believe it will only affect other people’s kids, and other kids’ parents.

I dont get how this is an argument
It doesnt matter is only 2% of kids can get it. Because those 2% can still go on to give it to others. and even "Low 40s" ignores the older teachers.
We should at this moment, be looking at ways to decrease any an all unnecessary contact that can be avoided.
It should be distance learning with accomodations made for those who do not have internet, such as packets and prerecorded lessons on DVDs or something.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
RaiTides, that article is from a month ago. Even Fox News is now admitting children get it and can be harmed by it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/health/over-31-percent-florida-children-tested-florida-positive-covid-19-report.amp

Has anyone ever said children cant be armed by it? Statistically children rare contract and are at even less risk from Covid than they are the flu. This is not disputed by anyone as far as I know.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

Notice. Close to 0 cases in young children. This data is pretty convincing here.

Exactly - this isn't an argument (at least, with anyone here). Thanks for referencing the CDC, as well. I understand the public health concern about unknowns, but that's why it's even more important to reference scientific sources when discussing this.

Policy makers should be looking at data and considering the risks of different options. But there are risks to children both ways, and that's what the pediatric society recommendation was getting at.

The AAP has sided with teachers unions against that interpretation of their statement. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/07/10/pediatricians-trump-school-reopening-coronavirus-356229

The policy makers are cherry-picking data to justify their political decisions, not examining it.

It’s really easy to conflate a small number of deaths and likely much larger number of lifelong health issues with none at all when you believe it will only affect other people’s kids, and other kids’ parents.

That is sadly how many people in the US think, things happen to other people, not me
My Cousin had to deal with a kid, dropped off by a parent who knew the kid had it, because they had to go to work.
This isnt a joke people, take this seriously

There are 6million kids with asthma in the US. The CDC has also been pretty clear that they want maximum safety measures taken and don’t know much about how badly this disease will affect children. Saying “it’s just like the flu” has been shown wrong again and again.

We’re seeing what happens when you politicise a virus playing out in front of us.

The problem here isn’t balancing the safety of the kids with the best result, mitigating the worst blah blah blah. It is literally the BoE telling you to put your kids in the virus hotbox or they’ll shut down education completely.

I have family who are teachers. They had to threaten a strike to get their school to consider distance learning...or even wiping down the damn tables between periods.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
We’re seeing what happens when you politicise a virus playing out in front of us.

Well,
When the response to the Virus is clearly driven by politics and economics, rather than rationale, it becomes political
Not to mention, people are starting to realize that, poltics affect every facet of our lives now and isnt something that happens in november every 2 years.

Lots of studies are being published that even if young kids do contract covid19, they don't spread it to the same degree as infected adults...such as this one:
https://www.uvm.edu/uvmnews/news/kids-rarely-transmit-covid-19-say-uvm-docs-top-journal#.Xw3mVulNUmM.twitter

This studied the spread of COVID-19 in Iceland with Iceland’s Directorate of Health and the National University Hospital. At the time, they tested 36,500 people and Iceland had 1,801 cases and ten deaths. On a per-capita basis, Iceland ranks near the very top in testing:
https://www.decode.com/iceland-provides-a-picture-of-the-early-spread-of-covid-19-in-a-population-with-a-cohesive-public-health-response/

Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.

Does this mean we just go back to school without adhering to some level of safety? No. Of course, precautions must be taken and reasonable steps need to happen to mitigate the spread.

Most schools requires students to either walk through metal detectors or be wanded... it won't take much to take their temperature at the door either.

Frankly, the kids are way more at risks for other diseases than covid19.

If I had my druthers, I'd have schools employ both in-school and online classes where the students are at the school building part-time. Stagger the classes so that the overlaps are mitigated. I think that should be the new normal, avoid scenarios in cramming bodies in one locations sardine-like.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont get how this is an argument
It doesnt matter is only 2% of kids can get it. Because those 2% can still go on to give it to others. and even "Low 40s" ignores the older teachers.
We should at this moment, be looking at ways to decrease any an all unnecessary contact that can be avoided.
It should be distance learning with accomodations made for those who do not have internet, such as packets and prerecorded lessons on DVDs or something.

You know that logging or roofing much more dangerous than being a teacher during corona virus season...those people still go to work because it is their choice and they have to make a living. You let the market sort things out maybe going forward teachers will tend to be younger with healither immune systems - the positions will get filled.

We have an obesity epidemic in this country but you can still buy sugary drinks...You have to be realistic about this...if your goal is saving lives instead of protecting peoples freedoms - I can think of a lot better ways to save lives. Like if you banned cigarettes and drinks with over 5g of sugar in them youd save millions upon millions of lives and everyone could still leave their homes. Yet...we aren't doing those things.

I'd really expect those things over shutting down peoples lives / stunting social and physical development of children (not to mention their education quality)/ destroying the social wellbeing of an entire populace - to prevent some (lots of) deaths which no one can actually claim aren't inevitable anyways - because no one know if a vaccine will ever be very effective against this thing or what time frame it will arrive in.